My suggestions to SG creators

[veki]

It is obviously that creators of this game were inspired by board game called “Advanced Third Reich” and this is very good because this mentioned game is fantastic and work of a genius. Game “Strategic Command” is an also fantastic game but it needs just a little more to be a work of a genius also. I will tell now my suggestions how to my opinion achieve this “work of a genius” level so if “Strategic Command” game creators are interested they can use it in final game version. Actually, I will not tell you something completely new, except just to use some great rules from Adv. 3rd Reich game (with some modifications of course).

1. First and the more important suggestion is to use “Diplomatic Points” from diplomacy phase in Adv. 3rd Reich game. Lost of players already told you that they wanted to participate more active in diplomacy, especially when they wanted to activate minor countries as his minor ally. This great diplomacy phase make Adv. 3rd Reich game so unpredictable and because of that so specific and fantastic. Also when I click on a minor country flag in “World Map” I would like to see chance to join Axis or Allied alliance in percentage like you have for Italy, USSR and USA

2. Second more important suggestion is for unsupplied units. These units must NOT move or attack. Just defend yourself.

3. Add beaches on the map as only areas where invasion from sea is possible. It is stupid that players can unload units everywhere where they want.

4. You should have paratroopers.

5. You should have year season (winter, fall, summer, spring) and rule from Adv. 3rd Reich where sea invasions can be possible only in spring and summer and Russian winter effects.

6. You should partisans movement restricted only to they home country.

7. You should have oil effects.

8. Some guys already mentioned in forum problem about naval units. I agree that these units are too easy to destroy and too expensive to buy. In single player when you use Fog of War this problem is a little better but still you need to do something about this. I have no suggestion what but do something please.

This is all for now. Thanks in advance for reading this.

Sincerely yours,

Vedran.

[windstarz]

I think there needs to be a way to see a replay of your opponents attacks. Not all their routes they took to get to combat but when they would be in sight and then see the results of the combat.

Might be too big of a headache to program tho. I know nothing about programming.

[Mannheim Tanker]

bump

There are some good suggestions in this post that might help take SC to the next level. I find it curious that next to nobody has addressed any of these points.

[Desert Dave]

MT, I still don't know what BUMP refers to. Now, true that I am yet wet behind the ears and am liable to be insouciantly labelled -- newbie (this was FNG when we wore blue behind the crossed-rifles insignia and a rope around our shoulders), but tell me, yes?

Everything needn't be some deep dark secret, that only the cogniscenti might deliberate over, no?

I am firmly committed to #8 above (more naval warware due to less damage with each encounter), so here I stand, naked like all the rest.

[pzgndr]

Diplomacy should be subtle, with players able to nudge things here and there. While I love 3R/A3R, I never really liked the A3R diplomacy because of a snowball effect. The more tactical success you had, the more diplomacy shifted to your favor and kept growing. It just led to some unbalanced games in my experience, so I kept with the historical events and variants. (With board games, you get to pick and choose these things. ) Variable US entry is good, and SC seems to do a good job with its political model. We need to see more of the game before we mess with diplomacy, I think.

Supply is probably fine, but again we need to see more of the game guts to understand how the unit supply parameter is affected by HQ units. Being out of supply for a couple of weeks in this scale game won't halt units in place like 3R. Reduced supply will take its toll.

Oil effects should be considered, beyond the MPP loss. Some loss of action points for tank units and air/naval perhaps.

[Hawk]

I'll try to answer a few.

1.

In this thread, Hubert said:

"Honest answer is that I wanted to avoid how some of the other game implemented diplomacy through pressuring etc., because I often found it led to a lot of cheating. For me this was just a game design decision but diplomacy is mostly dealt with how you play the game. Some examples, play overly agressive as Axis and the US and Russia might enter the war early on, attack your facist ally Spain and facist countries like Romania or Hungary might not join your side etc. Under the right conditions Spain and Turkey could join the Axis and so on. Things are a bit reverse when playing as Allies but it is mostly intuitive and the 'random' options keep all these countries random but within a historical context

Hubert"

2.

Unsupplied units are next to useless anyway and attacking with them is nearly pointless.

3.

Given time, any coastline can be invaded if left undefended. You'll take losses if trying to land in an usutable place.

4.

Paratroopers at this scale where used to seldom to justify the effort it would take to add them to the program.

5.

The prolonged turns during winter simulates the extra effort needed to wage war in harsh weather.

Remember that Hubert (like everyone else) has to find a good balance between playability and realism.

6.

Hubert said that partisans has been adjusted.

7.

What do you mean?

8.

Well, if you don't know what you want, you can't expect Hubert to know either, can you?

Mannheim: if you use the search option, you will find that many of these questions have been debated quite a bit.

Immer: "bump" in this setting means "move this thread back up to the top"

In general, use search more folks!

Cheers!

Hawk

[Mannheim Tanker]

Originally posted by Immer Etwas:

MT, I still don't know what BUMP refers to. Now, true that I am yet wet behind the ears and am liable to be insouciantly labelled -- newbie (this was FNG when we wore blue behind the crossed-rifles insignia and a rope around our shoulders), but tell me, yes?

Everything needn't be some deep dark secret, that only the cogniscenti might deliberate over, no?

I am firmly committed to #8 above (more naval warware due to less damage with each encounter), so here I stand, naked like all the rest.

Hehe...I didn't think bump was a secret to anyone on the internet these days. It's just a way of "bumping" a topic back up to the top of the list on the forum by posting in it. No big secrets, no illuminati...

[Mannheim Tanker]

Originally posted by Hawk:

3.

Given time, any coastline can be invaded if left undefended. You'll take losses if trying to land in an usutable place.

True, but you're also making some assumptions based on the level of abstraction in this game. In real life, that corps or army doesn't occupy just the single hex as is seen in SC, but rather it is spread out along the coastline. Short of having smaller units (something it seems we all want to avoid in SC), there must be some way of compensating for the fact that you're trying to represent a distributed unit with a discrete point. A simple way of doing this is to represent usable beachheads by single points that can then be defended in a more realistic (and play-balanced) manner.

Currently, short of building 500 armies to station in each coastal hex, we have no way of building the Atlantic Wall like it existed historically.

Originally posted by Hawk:

Mannheim: if you use the search option, you will find that many of these questions have been debated quite a bit.

Hi Pal, thanks. I've been lurking on the SC forum since it was started and have followed with interest most of the discussions. (BTW, I have no idea how to put the umlaut over the "a" in your name - my apologies!). While many of these questions have been discussed, not all of them have, nor have they been discussed exhaustively. I was merely trying to stimulate some discussion on those questions that have not been thoroughly discussed yet. BTW: Are you still playing W@W?

[ May 29, 2002, 02:12 PM: Message edited by: Mannheim Tanker ]

[Desert Dave]

MT, I met an Illuminati once, it was while I was in a honkey-tonk down Bosier City way, and anyway, he was the wisest, most insightful human I have ever known... told me about Life and Love and Truth and Beauty and all that slow-smoking jazz... I have been looking, looking for another hep-cat like that ever since...

[Mannheim Tanker]

Originally posted by Immer Etwas:

MT, I met an Illuminati once, it was while I was in a honkey-tonk down Bosier City way, and anyway, he was the wisest, most insightful human I have ever known... told me about Life and Love and Truth and Beauty and all that slow-smoking jazz... I have been looking, looking for another hep-cat like that ever since...

Interesting story. It's always a treat to meet those rare people that seem to have everything "together", isn't it?

Well, I'm hardly the right guy then if you're looking for another. I might be "illuminated" by the fluorescent tubes here at work, but I'm pretty sure that I'm not Illuminati!

[Hawk]

Originally posted by Mannheim Tanker:

BTW, I have no idea how to put the umlaut over the "a" in your name - my apologies!

LOL MT! It is possible on non Norwegian keyboards too. You have to press ALT+ three numbers (don't remember which).

Anyway, I agree that building 500+ armies are not a good sollution. However, you need some forces to prevent landings. Not having those pre-determined landing points, makes for a much more interresting and tenser game IMHO!

Sadly enough, I haven't had time lately to play any W@W. That "real life" thingy is seriously reducing my gaming time! :cool:

Cheers!